I defy your paltry labels ([info]chocklit_frog) wrote,
@ 2008-03-31 17:14:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Ranty McRant
Today I was gleefully eating my lunch, ie. undigestible, unidentifiable mush in the cafeteria, happily listening to my Slashcast, when I was accosted by Campus for Christ. What particularly annoyed me was the way they started up the conversation, with absolutely no preamble, no "how are classes" or anything - I know one of the girls from Con Ed class, so I thought it was nice if a little unusual for her to ask if she and her friend could sit down with me. It's definitely disconcerting, thus, to find out that people have a set agenda in talking to you, as opposed to conversing with you for the simple joy of your company. 

It started innocuously; she introduced her friend and said they were "going around today talking to people about what our club does, and about spirituality." They did not do this, but rather started questioning me. Frankly, if the conversation doesn't develop naturally onto the topic, I think it's quite intrusuive to force it. Furthermore, it's impolite to continue to do so when the person you're talking to politely expresses disinterest. You'd think they'd give up when you say you're an atheist, always have been and always will be, but no. I was excruciatingly careful about what I said, because we're such a small faculty and chances are good I'll be seeing quite a bit of her and working with her, so relations need to be on good terms. Not that I'd ever want to risk offending anyone, as people who know me undoubtedly know. Anyway, I attempted to gently change the subject and lighten the heavily awkward mood, commenting on the teach sweaters we're getting for when we're organizing frosh week next year - I commented on aptness of the slogan "Teaches Educ-EIGHT in B. Ed" to which she sniffed haughtily and replied, "oh, I could NEVER wear that, it's against my MORALS," (as if I don't have any morals?) "ESPESCIALLY not in front of my parents, they're very conservative, they're CHRISTIANS." A whole world of wtf-ery right there. It seems quite self-righteous, a subtle little prod of holier-than-thou-ness. Am I being too controversial in thinking this? It just makes me angry - no, not even angry, more frustrated and disappointed - that, despite the fact that I'd have quite liked to strike up a respectful and intellectual conversation, even debate, on the topic, there's just no point bashing your head against a brick wall. I prefer to have a wide variety of opinions represented in my friends, acquantances, and casual conversations; it's refreshing, but it just ceases to be productive when people are dogmatic.



(21 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]xscarlet
2008-03-31 11:10 pm UTC (link)
I told you that the exact same thing happened to me, right? They said they were going to have a discussion and sat down and asked me what I believed. Then out came the pamphlets. I guess it's an organization-wide recruiting tool.

I agree about the agenda thing. I mean, well, people have agendas for talking to other people all the time. But if they had come up to me and said "Hey, we're from CoC, and we're going to talk to you about religion and give you some information on Christianity whether you choose to accept it or not, I would have been more open to their ideas.

"You'd think they'd give up when you say you're an atheist, always have been and always will be, but no." Here's the thing. I say that religious people are fanatics because, if, no matter how much you rationalize with them, they won't change their minds, they are therefore fanatical in their beliefs. By saying this, you're acting the same way. Be careful. But for the most part, they're not being rational, lol.

When I asked my canvassers why the Word of God was the Bible, they opened up the Bible to read me a passage. So the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so. That is a logical fallacy (tautology) and really shouldn't be used to try to convince a debater that the Bible is in fact the word of God. If I write a Facebook post that says "This Facebook post is the word of God", that's not any better. It makes me so mad that they couldn't see the rational error of their own ways.

Honestly, if people were to say that religion was irrational, appealing to the emotions and soul and things that can't be defined, I would be more willing to accept it. But rationalizing with people on a different level is near impossible with the ideas they are trying to prove.

Guess what, kids? You can be conservative and not have morals. You can be an atheist and have morals. Morals are subjective. The Bible condones slavery. Is that moral? I don't think religion, on the whole, is bad. But this is obviously a special case.

Sorry for the tl;dr. It just pissed me off too.




(Reply to this) (Thread)

Are you kidding? there is no such thing as tl;dr for Irena!
[info]chocklit_frog
2008-04-01 01:36 am UTC (link)
"Here's the thing. I say that religious people are fanatics because, if, no matter how much you rationalize with them, they won't change their minds, they are therefore fanatical in their beliefs. By saying this, you're acting the same way. Be careful. But for the most part, they're not being rational, lol."

No, not at all. There's a huge difference. I have indeed done my research. I've been extremely interested in religion purely as a psychological and cultural phenomenon from a very young age. I've read the bible in its entirety (online, lol), in addition to excerpts from the Quar'an, Torah, etc. as well as numerous other books on religion and religious philosophy. Ie. NOT just Dawkins, I'm looking at the whole picture. I have listened to what religious people I know have to say, and found many of their ideas to be illogical, fundamental, and detrimental, even in many cases immoral, and I have disagreed firmly but politely with the comprehensive messages of all of these sources.

This is definitely a lot more than many religious people can say, espescially fundamentalists. I've bothered to inform myself so that I am able to debate, and I know what people are talking about. What is comes down to, the source of my disbelief, is that I believe in scientific evidence. Now, of COURSE science is fallible, but we are humans, it is the best thing we have, it works, and here's the most important part: if scientists are proven wrong, THEY'LL ADMIT IT, revise their hypothesis, and keep on going in the pursuit of truth. If there is ever scientific evidence of a supernatural being(oxymoron here)then sure, I'll look at that evidence and decide for myself, using my own mental capacities and logic, devoid any ideology I could have been indoctrinated with if I were religious, whether or not it is acceptable as conclusive evidence.

Just because we can't explain the mysteries of the universe or may even ever be able to absolutely does not mean that we should recourse to supernatural explanations, it just means that we are limited human beings. This is a primitive way of dealing with phenomena - eg. what is lightning caused by? Zeus, of course! (Incidentally, why is it that people can cheerfully be atheists about Zeus, Thor, any other deity that has ever been worshipped, and still make the fundamentally, hugely inexcusable mistake of irrationality in regards to assuming that "their" god exists when presumably all of these others don't? Isn't that indicative of truly staggering arogance and short-sightedness?)

There is this thing called the burden of proof. If you are claiming something exists, the onus is on you to give me conclusive proof to back up that claim. It is a huge fallacy to say that the person who doesn't believe in a claim is responsible for proving that the entity in question does NOT exist. You can claim that there are invisible, intangible, inaudible fairies in your garden, and well, obviously I can't prove that they don't exist, or that God doesn't exist, so ha! You must be right. No, obviously, this doesn't make sense. Atheism is NOT "belief in the abscence of God", it's crazy crazy pseudologic to say that it's "faith" to hold a "belief" that something doesn't exist.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Are you kidding? there is no such thing as tl;dr for Irena!
[info]chocklit_frog
2008-04-01 01:39 am UTC (link)
HENCE, I can't hold fundamentalist beliefs if I don't have beliefs. I'm just waiting for proof.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Are you kidding? there is no such thing as tl;dr for Irena!
[info]xscarlet
2008-04-01 03:19 am UTC (link)
"There is this thing called the burden of proof."

"In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the burden of proof falls on Side Government (or in this case, Side Religion, lol) to verify and validate its batshit loco institutions. John F. Kennedy once said, 'Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country." I know that's not related, but I love that quote. Thank you."

i miss debate.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Are you kidding? there is no such thing as tl;dr for Irena!
[info]xscarlet
2008-04-01 03:47 am UTC (link)
and you. i can't seem to stop commenting on this post. sorry.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Are you kidding? there is no such thing as tl;dr for Irena!
[info]chocklit_frog
2008-04-01 04:29 am UTC (link)
"batshit loco institutions" Ahahahahaha. If only others could see sense in your eloquent statements. *sigh*

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Are you kidding? there is no such thing as tl;dr for Irena!
[info]xscarlet
2008-04-01 03:21 am UTC (link)
That, and I believe that you're logical, obviously, and know you've done your research. I was just comparing the two statements.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Are you kidding? there is no such thing as tl;dr for Irena!
(Anonymous)
2008-04-02 04:57 am UTC (link)
Hey Guys ... I couldn't help but reading your post as I am both an Alum from Queen's and also work for Campus for Christ. Sorry that you had more of a "preaching" experience rather than a "dialogue." I agree that some people get pretty focused in what they want to say and can stop listening. Others start to feel intimidated in a discussion and become more obtuse, defensive or "fanatical" as you have penned. Most students in our group have a passion for sharing their faith based on a passionate and personal relationship to God. Sometimes focused excitement can come across wrongly.

In conclusion, I would hope that both you and these members of Campus for Christ would keep an open mind as spirituality is discussed. This allows both parties to grow and develop in their spirituality. People in all disciplines whether science, philosophy or religion can hold so dogmatically to a thesis, ideal or belief that they refuse to engage with opposing ideas. This can cause fanaticism in any and all disciplines. My desire is that we would be able to journey, challenge and sharpen each other in this life and to the next.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Are you kidding? there is no such thing as tl;dr for Irena!
[info]chocklit_frog
2008-04-02 04:48 pm UTC (link)
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, sincerely. More people need to take this approach. Unfortunately however, I have not once had a positive experience such as you suggest. Sharing opinions is nice, but unless those opinions are solicited or invited, I see them as intrusive upon my freedom FROM religion. It does not really fall under defensible freedom of expression when you are ambushing someone who you hardly know and interrogating them about personal matters. I have never witnessed secularists canvassing for their cause, and this is to be expected because the viewpoint is not institutionalized, as is religion. I would never try to impose my views on someone else, which I have often percieved to be the case due to the judgemental attitudes prevalent in many such "dialogues." For instance, I would appreciate it if, upon me telling someone I am an atheist, they wouldn't get a barely-stifled expression of shock, and ask me, incredulously, where I get my morals (or apparently, lack thereof) from. I agree, it really would be nice if everyone could be more open-minded.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Are you kidding? there is no such thing as tl;dr for Irena!
[info]chocklit_frog
2008-04-02 04:57 pm UTC (link)
And not to pick on you, but just as an example, I sense an interesting attitude in your certainty that I or some other non-theist would share your enthusiasm to "grow and develop in their spirituality" as well as "journey...in this life and to the next." It would almost seem as though you'd missed the point made about a lack of belief/interest in these topics, and are continuing to allow allegedly unbiased discourse to be shaped but your assumptions, or "givens" in terms of your own view.

(Really, I don't mean to come across as attacking your views, I hope I haven't put you off further discussion, whoever you are)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Are you kidding? there is no such thing as tl;dr for Irena!
[info]xscarlet
2008-04-02 09:51 pm UTC (link)
It's good to get another perspective on the same issue.

Here's the thing. I'm not afraid of passion, for anything. In fact, I really like it when people are enthusiastic about their interests and personal choices. A passion for life can only lead to great dedication, successes and accomplishments.

I think the issues that I had the most concern with were the "discussion", the pamphlets and the appaling use of logic on the side of CfC. The discussion turned into them giving me pamphlets and reading out loud from them, trying to make me understand Christianity when I honestly just wanted to finish my lunch. At the end, I gave the pamphlet back to them and told them that since I'm agnostic, and logical, and reasonable, a booklet full of quotes from the Bible wouldn't help me find the light of Jesus. Quite simply, for logical and rational people, this approach doesn't work. I'm surprised that CfC is attempting this at a university, of all places with free thinkers.

Regarding discussion of spirituality: The information I asked them concerning their spirituality all came from the Bible, and when I asked them questions about the Bible, they answered it with quotes from the Bible. That doesn't make any sense. I would enjoy talking to these girls if they had approached me differently, even asked me if we wanted to have a heated discussion or debate. They didn't engage any of my "opposing ideas." I don't mind being rationalized with. In fact, I love it. But there was no rational discussion. The girl who told me that she had the light of Jesus within her can't promote "growth and development". Quite honestly, I thought she was crazy.

Thanks for the input. But the approach doesn't work.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]chocklit_frog
2008-04-02 05:10 pm UTC (link)
"I don't think religion, on the whole, is bad."

Let's leave that statement alone for the moment, and not go into all the atrocities that have been committed throughout history in its name. These obvious drawbacks are, I think, perfectly self-evident. It's interesting to note, by the way, that no one has ever killed in the name of atheism.

Just consider, on the other hand: it has occured to me that there is nothing inherently present in religion that cannot be attained in its abscence. For instance, people will often claim that much charity work and humanitarian efforts stem from religion. I would disagree in the sense that yes, religious people do good things, but there is not necessarily a correlation between these things and their deeds. It's unlikely that people are doing what they do out of fear of punishment from a deity, as a selfish kind of self-preservation. Clearly, that would be grossly immoral, and I like to give people much more credit than that. What is much more likely is that they are acting on the basis of the "golden rule" which at its essence is not at all a religious idea, but an expression of human empathy and reason, even Darwinian altruism. What I mean is that a non-religious person can quite easily arrive at the same conclusion that it is worthwhile to treat others well, and they obviously have due to the fact of nonviolent, non baby-eating, socially integrated atheists. Hence, why is the religious interpretation even necessary if the same results can be attained without the intermediate and quite often detrimental step?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]xscarlet
2008-04-02 09:41 pm UTC (link)
Here's the thing. I agree that people can reason by themselves regarding certain tenets of morality, but I don't think that it's not entirely due to religion. From the beginning, religion was the main institution used to spread ideas about morality, for better or for worse. I think the idea that the "golden rule" is purely empathetic is ultimately impossible: many of the ideas we have about morality today stemmed from basic religious beliefs.

"It's unlikely that people are doing what they do out of fear of punishment from a deity, as a selfish kind of self-preservation." In the Middle Ages (I'm just pulling that out of my ass) or any other era except now when it was okay to kill and be killed, many times religion was used as a tool to control the masses. It is not currently true that most people do good out of fear, but you cannot deny that much of our modern rationalizations stem from the conception of religion itself.

Okay, so there have been many atrocities committed throughout history in religion's name. What about politics and power relations? Is the government, as an institution, inherently flawed just because it has been used for ill and not good? No-one has killed in the name of atheism, but the idea that there are people who have killed WITHOUT referencing religion means that the blame does not lie solely on religion. You cannot blame religion and only religion for the atrocities you make reference to. It's clear that with the same mindset, there are some people who would have committed the same felonies or started the same wars regardless. I suspect the real culprit is race, rather than religion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]xscarlet
2008-04-02 09:42 pm UTC (link)
I mean, race relations, of course: the notion that there are innate differing capabilities or that one race is superior to another.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]chocklit_frog
2008-04-03 03:57 am UTC (link)
"It is not currently true that most people do good out of fear, but you cannot deny that much of our modern rationalizations stem from the conception of religion itself."

Oh, and isn't it sad that we didn't reach a more enlightened state earlier? Think of how much civilization might have progressed had we discarded primitive supernatural notions centuries ago. Not that we've reached it now by any means...

I'm not convinced that they stem from religion, I don't see how a worldview with a core of irrationality can be any more effective than modern enlightenment at reaching any such conclusion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]xscarlet
2008-04-04 12:29 am UTC (link)
Well, I didn't say religion was rational. =P

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]chocklit_frog
2008-04-04 03:19 am UTC (link)
Exactly. Thus irrational conception =/=> modern rationalizations.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]xscarlet
2008-04-04 04:57 pm UTC (link)
not all of them. we've been through this, lol.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]chocklit_frog
2008-04-04 09:43 pm UTC (link)
ashjfjsh what? I think I've lost track of the exact topic

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]blithe_solace
2008-04-05 03:45 am UTC (link)
lol your blog reminds me of a situation where i was talking to on of my friend's girlfriends and she was talking to about her parents [ the topic of parents being annoying and intrusive was mentioned hence how it lead to that], she goes " my parents are nice" and i'm like that nice, and then she goes " it's because they are christian"....i'm thinking WTF???, and i didn't even mention my parents religious beliefs nor did anyone else there...that was by far the dumbest reasoning that i have ever been subjected too. lol, i didn't know how to respond...i wanted to laugh cause it was so dumb the logic, but again, i didn't want to appear "impolite".

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]xscarlet
2008-04-05 06:32 am UTC (link)
Agreed. But you should have said something like "My parents/friends are nice, and they're not Christian" politely.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(21 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…